Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in outer space[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for a list article. Merge any useful tidbits into Gemini 7 and STS-48 articles. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest, the material sourced to Gemini 7 is self published and the material for STS-48 should probably be re-written if someone were to include it in that article, but I'm not convinced the due weight is there either. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary overcoverage of fringe theories. --W. D. Graham 16:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't look like an actual coherent topic, just an originally researched amalgamation of fringe claims. jps (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore deleted material, rewrite Large sections of the article with references to the peer-reviewed journals http://www.cufos.org/pubs3.html and http://www.scientificexploration.org/ were deleted. This is deletion of properly referenced material, which turned the article into a shell of its former self, and now the article itself is up for deletion. The explanation for deleting the material refers to "self published", but in this case it is including a copy of a peer-reviewed journal article on the author's personal website, which is common practice among university professors. There are a few references that should be deleted because they could be considered "self published", but the properly referenced material needs to be restored. Obankston (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a well known fringe journal that publishes just about anything, cufos is clearly an unreliable publication for ufo believers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This got wide attention during its times, and it is still revisited. The Journal of Scientific Exploration passes, so it's irrelevant whatever you just said about it. Two more sources were added. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 05:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passes what? It's a clearly unreliable publication since it's peer review is not very thorough. Let me quote their own documents: "the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals." Something which intentionally publishes speculative or less plausible material is clearly not reliable. You saying "This got wide attention" but we are talking about a list article, so what "this" is is unclear. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources discuss this (imaginary) topic. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is not a WP:RS. -- 101.119.28.55 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.28.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The sources are not reliable and there's no credible mainstream acceptance of these events as anything other than obscure urban legend.Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FRINGE, and as a fairly well-known urban legend. We are not Truthpedia: we publish stuff - see WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other places these incidents can be mentioned if reliable sources can be found. Giving this topic an article of its own puts undue weight upon it. --W. D. Graham 06:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... as a fairly well-known urban legend ...", why do you use the singular case when describing a list article? You do know that this article is not about an incident?

Per WP:FRINGE? You mean WP:NFRINGE which says: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Arguing it is notable without presenting the extensive sources is putting the cart before the horse; this is particularly considering that as it stands (and was already mentioned), the article is an original research amalgamation. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is one "dedicated article ... [written] in a serious and reliable manner, in ... one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers": Digital Video Analysis Of Anomalous Space Objects, by Mark J. Carolotto, in Journal of Scientic Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45-63, 1995. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Not only that, but that article was in turn cited in two articles to be found at Google scholar, indicating "it has been referenced extensively". Bearian (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Finally, there are two books, Bad Astronomy and The Ufo Experience A Scientific Inquiry that reference the subject matter of this article. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the paper you are referencing is in a "journal" which is not taken seriously by the scientific community. --W. D. Graham 19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this subject has not been studied as a coherent topic in reliable sources. I do not consider a couple of mentions in a fringe pseudo-journal to consist of "reliable" or "substantial" coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.